Utah legislator will make “minor” adjustments to quell protest.

The Utah legislator who filed a bill to limit the growth of government-funded fiber networks contends that protests of the bill are based on a "misunderstanding" and that some minor adjustments will clear everything up.

The legislation would make it illegal for an "interlocal entity" to provide telecommunication service on fiber optic networks in any location outside the boundaries of its member cities. It is targeted at UTOPIA, the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, a fiber network consortium of 16 cities that has built infrastructure in non-member municipalities such as Salt Lake City.

Further Reading

Bill seen as gift to incumbent ISPs who are threatened by UTOPIA fiber network.

"Somehow the bill has gotten mischaracterized in the public eye," Utah Rep. and bill author Curt Webb told Ars in an e-mailed response to our questions. Webb said he's met with lobbyists and people in the industry over the past few days.

While "much of the misunderstanding has been cleared up, you may see a few minor adjustments to provide that clarification," he said. "The bill does not prohibit infrastructure expansion. In fact, it addresses no other entity than UTOPIA. UTOPIA is a government entity created by an interlocal agreement, and the public asks for and deserves transparency and accountability of them. The bill requires that any city into which UTOPIA expands become a member city."

UTOPIA Legislative Policy Director Gary Crane had argued that the bill would do nothing except "damage or punish the UTOPIA cities."

As we wrote previously, "UTOPIA has partnered with one business 'to create a fiber ring around Salt Lake City, and that partnership provided that others could connect onto that system to defray costs.' Future connections that require a new contract could be barred... Crane said UTOPIA is also worried the bill could disrupt negotiations with investment firm Macquarie Capital, which are aimed at finishing construction of the fiber network."

Webb told Ars that his bill "is not designed to damage UTOPIA in any way, but rather to provide clarity and accountability to citizens who may be involved in that expansion." Accountability is needed because if UTOPIA service in a non-member city went wrong, "who would the citizens in that area turn to? That user is not a citizen of the providing entity. Their own non-member city could say, 'we are not UTOPIA.' If they turned to UTOPIA for help, those member cities could say, 'You are not our constituent.'"

That's true as far as it goes, but it actually isn't very different from the usual model. Residents don't get service from UTOPIA directly—they get it from private Internet service providers just as they would from Comcast or CenturyLink. UTOPIA itself is an open access network upon which any private company can offer Internet access. ISPs offering service over UTOPIA fiber include Brigham.net, Fibernet, InfoWest, SumoFiber, Veracity, XMission.

"Because our network is open, the incumbent telecoms are welcome to join our network, but have elected not to," UTOPIA says.

Government agencies and businesses in Salt Lake City and other municipalities are getting Internet service from UTOPIA fiber, despite those cities not being members of UTOPIA. "We have fiber connections just about everywhere," Crane told Ars. He said it's difficult to get city governments to join officially.

There may be good reason for cities to be reluctant to join UTOPIA. The group has struggled financially, with a legislative audit in 2012 finding that it "spent nearly all of its $185 million in bond proceeds, though only 59 percent of that has gone toward building infrastructure for the municipal fiber-optics network," according to the Deseret News.

Construction has taken years longer than expected, and until it breaks even, "member cities collectively must continue to make annual payments of nearly $13 million for debt service on the bonds," said the Deseret News article, published in August 2012.

Not all UTOPIA member cities are pledging members, however. Non-pledging member cities don't have to cover bond payments, but they aren't promised fiber build-outs until construction in the pledging cities is done.

Webb indicated that cities can become non-pledging members of UTOPIA and meet the requirements of his bill. "Inter local agreements between cities constitute government entities, and those entities need to be subject to accountability and transparency laws," Webb wrote in an e-mail to a Utah resident, which was shared with Ars. "We expect that and demand that as citizens. Cities may join as non-pledging members. It isn't difficult."

I'm really sick and tired of Big Money running the show around here. Whatever the lobbyists want from the politicians, they get. Hell, the lobbyists even write the bills to be introduced in the legislatures!

We really need to get the money out of politics. You can't even run for office unless you're loaded with cash.

Well when you look at the fact it's a massive pile of debt currently... it kind of makes sense to have some kind of restrictions on it. Anyone could load up on debt and build something but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

While I don't understand the entire situation, someone saying that they want checks on a $185m debt pile before people can just join in on the fun seems reasonable from a broad perspective. The wording of the bill probably doesn't match the general idea of what he is saying, but when non-municipal companies can't really throw debt at the problem to build out without caring too much (in this case the cities are spreading the bill, aka taxpayers), it seems reasonable to ask a few questions about the project to make sure it isn't a money pit.

If they turned to UTOPIA for help, those member cities could say, 'You are not our constituent.'"

Really? How does this guy figure that? I get my water and electricity from the city - but it's still covered under a service contract which stipulates responsibilities for both parties. If the municipal water service breaks down and they refuse to fix it I can bring them before the courts for breach of contract and sue for damages and corrective relief. How would it matter if the contract was with the city I lived in or a separate one? (This of course being a discussion of an ISP located out of the member region running over UTOPIA infrastructure, not as Webb suggests an individual customer of such an ISP who would deal with the ISP directly)

Quote:

There may be good reason for cities to be reluctant to join UTOPIA. The group has struggled financially, with a legislative audit in 2012 finding that it "spent nearly all of its $185 million in bond proceeds, though only 59 percent of that has gone toward building infrastructure for the municipal fiber-optics network," according to the Deseret News.

That is definitely concerning, and gives good reason for oversight of these projects. This still doesn't effect customers in non-member cities - they are not liable for the bonds so they don't have a voice in that issue, and as long as UTOPIA provides infrastructure and service as contracted their financial state is neither here nor there to the customers.

It sounds to me like this is a chicken and egg scenario in the making for the purpose of garnering city taxes to cover state infrastructure.

If the network expands to a "non-member city" then they either become a "member city" (read: support the infrastructure, i.e. provide funding via taxes) or don't get access.

Then there's the more conspiracy theory-type consideration:

Quote:

"Inter local agreements between cities constitute government entities, and those entities need to be subject to accountability and transparency laws,"

So, it would seem that by opting into UTOPIA, a city suddenly loses it's sovereignty within the state and morphs with another city, which seems ridiculous and a very strange requirement for a communications agreement.

It would seem, then that someone has taken the term Utopia to a very literally level of translation from Wells' novel, A Modern Utopia:

(From Wikipedia)

Quote:

Utopian economics

The world shares the same language, coinage, customs, and laws, and freedom of movement is general.[18] Some personal property is allowed, but "all natural sources of force, and indeed all strictly natural products" are "inalienably vested in the local authorities" occupying "areas as large sometimes as half England."[19] The World State is "the sole landowner of the earth."[20] Units of currency are based on units of energy, so that "employment would constantly shift into the areas where energy was cheap."[21] Humanity has been almost entirely liberated from the need for physical labor: "There appears to be no limit to the invasion of life by the machine."

It is disgusting that things have gotten so bad that politicians can be this transparent in their corruption.

If I understand the argument, it's that the city is the provider and a city's government is only responsible for its own citizens. So what happens when a city rolled out its fiber internet server to other cities? Who owns it? Who is responsible?

It's akin to France rolling out fiber internet to all of its citizens, then decides to expand into Germany and has no political opposition. Governments are a special case and there needs to be clear rules.

You also have the issue of spending local tax payer money to expand services into other cities in hopes of monetary return. Sounds like a business to me.

There needs to be some clarification as to what roles all of these governments are playing.

They are supplying public utilities and local taxpayers have voted to support this.

Local taxpayers have decided that they want their local municipalities to spend their tax money constructing a low cost fiberoptic network, and they don't seem to mind that their money is being spent to expand the network to other cities that have not contributed to it.

The service is structured to support and encourage the formation of local small business in the form of residential IPs that will handle the bridge between the fiberoptic network and the residential connection.

An interesting footnote on this article that's otherwise about other things, but this is a demonstration of how and why it is that telecoms don't really elect to build fiber in the US. The average population density, including cities and etc. is about half that of Europe. 34 per km squared US verse 72 in Europe, keep in mind that while this includes Alaska in the US, it includes all of Eastern Europe for the EU. The pattern repeats for average city and town density, so it's going to cost (on average) twice as much to lay fiber per person in the US as in the EU.

That's also why we've got the most advanced wireless telecoms deployment. Oh sure next gen protocols might be tested everywhere, but they're inevitably deployed here first. It makes more sense, from an infrastructure standpoint, for the US to go wireless. We need competition in the wireless industry, hopefully Dish will enter as a new telecom without buying up anyone major like T-Mobile.

I'm struggling to see how this is controversial. It sounds like he's wanting a regulation that says, basically, "if you want access to this service, you must join the club and pay its dues." This doesn't strike me as being unreasonable. Is there some "bigger picture" I'm missing here? Can someone explain why this guy's proposal is a bad idea, let alone corrupt?

Edit: I'm not understanding the downvotes here. I'm asking for clarification. I'm not taking a position or advocating for the legislation. This doesn't look to me like one of those "municipalities are not allowed to roll out fiber" laws. It just looks like "if you want the fiber in your city, join the Utopia network." If there's something I'm missing, please explain it to me because I'm not seeing how this compares to, say, the measure in Kansas that is now "being clarified" (and that I strenuously disagree with, I live in Kansas).

You also have the issue of spending local tax payer money to expand services into other cities in hopes of monetary return. Sounds like a business to me.

Around here the state is selling access to roads during rush hour. Want a faster trip, it'll cost you around $5. Sounds like another business, right? Some areas sell access to firefighter services. I've read of the fire department camping outside a burning building and doing nothing because the fire service bill for that building was not paid. That should get more interesting when people die in the fire.

Quote:

There needs to be some clarification as to what roles all of these governments are playing.

Somehow it seems like Republicans have a different version of the English language that they break out whenever their constituents catch on to what they are up to. Democrats do it too - but it never seems so blatant, and it is never something so much opposed to the common good.

Around here the state is selling access to roads during rush hour. Want a faster trip, it'll cost you around $5. Sounds like another business, right? Some areas sell access to firefighter services. I've read of the fire department camping outside a burning building and doing nothing because the fire service bill for that building was not paid. That should get more interesting when people die in the fire.

It already was more complicated, in at least one case: because the fire dept. was offering service outside their municipality on a fee basis, there was contention that their liabilty insurrance wouldn't pay out in case of an accident or lawsuit from the landowner, if they hadn't entered a contract with them (by paying the fire protection fee.)

One more reason why Fire Protection should be a government run service. (the other being that private fire companies/individuals who work for them have a history of setting fires when cash flow is low.)

An interesting footnote on this article that's otherwise about other things, but this is a demonstration of how and why it is that telecoms don't really elect to build fiber in the US. The average population density, including cities and etc. is about half that of Europe. 34 per km squared US verse 72 in Europe, keep in mind that while this includes Alaska in the US, it includes all of Eastern Europe for the EU. The pattern repeats for average city and town density, so it's going to cost (on average) twice as much to lay fiber per person in the US as in the EU.

That's also why we've got the most advanced wireless telecoms deployment. Oh sure next gen protocols might be tested everywhere, but they're inevitably deployed here first. It makes more sense, from an infrastructure standpoint, for the US to go wireless. We need competition in the wireless industry, hopefully Dish will enter as a new telecom without buying up anyone major like T-Mobile.

Hum, you compare apples to oranges. That comparison between US and Europe is not reliable. Heck, the average density in France or United Kingdom is not even uniform however, cities are cities: you are going to get high density of people wherever you go in the world. BT Open Reach or French providers are targeting cities in the first place.

Building fiber optics outside cities is going to be expensive wherever you go especially in rural area and in mountain areas (we have plenty of those in Europe too).

I don't see where you got the impression that next gen protocols get deployed in the US first. There is no doubt that many countries in Europe were behind in terms of LTE deployment but it was the side effect of having pushed "3G" extensively with a relatively early start.

I don't see also LTE or other wireless being deployed outside major urban areas in the first place in the US. It is improving but many European countries are catching up quickly.

Actually your whole argument about Fiber optic deployment could be even deployed overall cheaper in Europe since the average density is higher there....

I'm really sick and tired of Big Money running the show around here. Whatever the lobbyists want from the politicians, they get. Hell, the lobbyists even write the bills to be introduced in the legislatures!

We really need to get the money out of politics. You can't even run for office unless you're loaded with cash.

"Somehow the bill has gotten mischaracterized in the public eye," Utah Rep. and bill author Curt Webb told Ars in an e-mailed response to our questions. Webb said he's met with lobbyists and people in the industry over the past few days.

Let me see if I'm understanding this right. The public thinks this bill was created by telecom lobbyists and is unhappy about that. In order to fix this, Webb is meeting with more lobbyists and "people in the industry".

I guess I didn't misunderstand after all. That sounds about right for a US state legislator these days.

[Jon, I really hope that you accidentally mischaracterized what he said there. But I bet you didn't.]

I'm really sick and tired of Big Money running the show around here. Whatever the lobbyists want from the politicians, they get. Hell, the lobbyists even write the bills to be introduced in the legislatures!

We really need to get the money out of politics. You can't even run for office unless you're loaded with cash.

Sadly, that's been true from the beginning. The Founding Fathers were all rich businessmen who had the time for politics and the economic incentive to end taxation by Parliament. About 1/3 of the colonists were Loyalists, 1/3 were Patriots, and the other 1/3 couldn't care less - they were too busy trying to survive.

Well when you look at the fact it's a massive pile of debt currently... it kind of makes sense to have some kind of restrictions on it. Anyone could load up on debt and build something but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

While I don't understand the entire situation, someone saying that they want checks on a $185m debt pile before people can just join in on the fun seems reasonable from a broad perspective. The wording of the bill probably doesn't match the general idea of what he is saying, but when non-municipal companies can't really throw debt at the problem to build out without caring too much (in this case the cities are spreading the bill, aka taxpayers), it seems reasonable to ask a few questions about the project to make sure it isn't a money pit.

I'm sure that's not what he's actually doing, but if it was...

I think the problem here was he let the telecoms write the legislation, so naturally it got worded in a way that the telecoms could use to stifle all competition. If he wanted good legislation he should have done his job and written it himself.

An interesting footnote on this article that's otherwise about other things, but this is a demonstration of how and why it is that telecoms don't really elect to build fiber in the US. The average population density, including cities and etc. is about half that of Europe. 34 per km squared US verse 72 in Europe, keep in mind that while this includes Alaska in the US, it includes all of Eastern Europe for the EU. The pattern repeats for average city and town density, so it's going to cost (on average) twice as much to lay fiber per person in the US as in the EU.

That's also why we've got the most advanced wireless telecoms deployment. Oh sure next gen protocols might be tested everywhere, but they're inevitably deployed here first. It makes more sense, from an infrastructure standpoint, for the US to go wireless. We need competition in the wireless industry, hopefully Dish will enter as a new telecom without buying up anyone major like T-Mobile.

From a Swedes perspective this is just not true.Fx. Sweden rolled out LTE in December 2009 while it took 1-2+ for the Us to start getting live networks.And Sweden has a population density that is close to Iowa (ranked 36th in Usa)

And the reason the telecoms are not building fiber networks is mostly due to the missing market pressures, since the free market is not working due laws that prevent any competition in already established areas you get the market with companies that only get bigger and bigger with no new small companies at all.

In my home town we have a fiber city network built by the government and this is a open platform for any company to sell their solutions on, only requirement is that the longest subscription is 1 month and as an example a 10/10 no cap connection is 4$ a month, 100/100 is 8$

I wish I could say I was shocked, I guess my only question would be if this bill gets passed, will UTOPIA be able to challenge the law in court? I assume so, but as IANAL, I figured I'd ask.

Short of an alien invasion or a take over by China or Russian within the next 30 years, I feel that I will not live to see the day when the government truly puts the citizens wellbeing and rights ahead of its own or companies that lobby them. Not saying any of the above wouldn't do the same... but it would at least be a different form of oppression, still sucks.

An interesting footnote on this article that's otherwise about other things, but this is a demonstration of how and why it is that telecoms don't really elect to build fiber in the US. The average population density, including cities and etc. is about half that of Europe. 34 per km squared US verse 72 in Europe, keep in mind that while this includes Alaska in the US, it includes all of Eastern Europe for the EU. The pattern repeats for average city and town density, so it's going to cost (on average) twice as much to lay fiber per person in the US as in the EU.

That's also why we've got the most advanced wireless telecoms deployment. Oh sure next gen protocols might be tested everywhere, but they're inevitably deployed here first. It makes more sense, from an infrastructure standpoint, for the US to go wireless. We need competition in the wireless industry, hopefully Dish will enter as a new telecom without buying up anyone major like T-Mobile.

If they turned to UTOPIA for help, those member cities could say, 'You are not our constituent.'"

Really? How does this guy figure that? I get my water and electricity from the city - but it's still covered under a service contract which stipulates responsibilities for both parties. If the municipal water service breaks down and they refuse to fix it I can bring them before the courts for breach of contract and sue for damages and corrective relief. How would it matter if the contract was with the city I lived in or a separate one? (This of course being a discussion of an ISP located out of the member region running over UTOPIA infrastructure, not as Webb suggests an individual customer of such an ISP who would deal with the ISP directly)

I assume there's some kind of regulatory nonsense going on that prevents ISPs from doing the same thing as the electric companies.

I live in upstate NY, my electric/gas came from the local subsidiary of a Spanish corporation until two years ago when they sold off their north American operations to a British corporation. none of this had any effect on me - my bills still go to the same company, and if they screw up then I can just complain to the state Public Service Commission.

"Webb said he's met with lobbyists and people in the industry over the past few days."

Yes, yes, that's the problem exactly.

I want accountability too. You should be held to account for taking corporate money and then pushing the corporate legislation that goes with it.

What's the real issue here? Is it that UTOPIA could start providing services in other locations at no cost to their residents? Shocking I say! Especially given that they are a backbone service and not an ISP, so they would have no customer interaction anyway.

It is disgusting that things have gotten so bad that politicians can be this transparent in their corruption.

If I understand the argument, it's that the city is the provider and a city's government is only responsible for its own citizens. So what happens when a city rolled out its fiber internet server to other cities? Who owns it? Who is responsible?

It's akin to France rolling out fiber internet to all of its citizens, then decides to expand into Germany and has no political opposition. Governments are a special case and there needs to be clear rules.

You also have the issue of spending local tax payer money to expand services into other cities in hopes of monetary return. Sounds like a business to me.

There needs to be some clarification as to what roles all of these governments are playing.

You should go work for this guy and help him spin his crap. These aren't actual issues. These are blah blah in hopes of scaring people. There is no loophole forcing people to automagically end up in a circumstance where an actual problem would exist.

There is no clarity needed as the consumer would deal with a service provider just like they do now and just like they do everywhere in the world where Internet service is provided. This does not create a rip in the time and space continuum allowing consumers to be extra screwed. Customers in Utah will be screwed just like everyone else, as much and often as possible.

Instead of talking in circles why not lay out a single example that illuminates the potential problem(s) you see.

Well when you look at the fact it's a massive pile of debt currently... it kind of makes sense to have some kind of restrictions on it. Anyone could load up on debt and build something but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

While I don't understand the entire situation, someone saying that they want checks on a $185m debt pile before people can just join in on the fun seems reasonable from a broad perspective. The wording of the bill probably doesn't match the general idea of what he is saying, but when non-municipal companies can't really throw debt at the problem to build out without caring too much (in this case the cities are spreading the bill, aka taxpayers), it seems reasonable to ask a few questions about the project to make sure it isn't a money pit.

I'm sure that's not what he's actually doing, but if it was...

So was the national highway system. So are most city water treatment facilites. So was running electricity to every home in America. I suppose that was all a waste too?

"Man, the US would be so much better if our infrastructure were more like Ethiopia" - said nobody ever.

It is disgusting that things have gotten so bad that politicians can be this transparent in their corruption.

If I understand the argument, it's that the city is the provider and a city's government is only responsible for its own citizens. So what happens when a city rolled out its fiber internet server to other cities? Who owns it? Who is responsible?

It's akin to France rolling out fiber internet to all of its citizens, then decides to expand into Germany and has no political opposition. Governments are a special case and there needs to be clear rules.

You also have the issue of spending local tax payer money to expand services into other cities in hopes of monetary return. Sounds like a business to me.

There needs to be some clarification as to what roles all of these governments are playing.

You should go work for this guy and help him spin his crap. These aren't actual issues. These are blah blah in hopes of scaring people. There is no loophole forcing people to automagically end up in a circumstance where an actual problem would exist.

There is no clarity needed as the consumer would deal with a service provider just like they do now and just like they do everywhere in the world where Internet service is provided. This does not create a rip in the time and space continuum allowing consumers to be extra screwed. Customers in Utah will be screwed just like everyone else, as much and often as possible.

Instead of talking in circles why not lay out a single example that illuminates the potential problem(s) you see.

He did with the local taxpayer money issue. Take the city of Layton, Utah, for example. It is a Utopia member city (even though the service is not available in all parts of the city). The city is STILL paying taxes on a bond that was supposed to help pay for Utopia. Just south of Layton is the city of Kaysville, which is not a member city. Why should Utopia be able to build out to the city of Kaysville, on Layton taxpayer's dime, when Utopia hasn't even fulfilled the terms of its agreement to Layton yet (and likely never will)?

Lets clear a few things up Mr. Webb. This only affects UTOPIA now. It previously prevented new partnerships from forming. ("UTOPIA is a government entity created by an interlocal agreement, and the public asks for and deserves transparency and accountability of them. The bill [now] requires that any city into which UTOPIA expands become a member city.")

To be fair, the article quotes the money issues that UTOPIA has had. It sounds like most public projects in Utah, excessive executive pay, and not enough $$ in the pockets above the boots on the ground.

Another example is the Utah Transit Authority, who have been repeatedly picketed for raising rates on the disabled bus system to finance executive pay raises.

However, this bill could prevent a network from reaching critical mass to be attractive to a telecom.Say like the Google Fiber taking over the Provo's own fiber network. (more of an acquisition to Google Fiber, not much of a deployment yet.) It was great when it worked, it had support issues now and then. And then it was bought out by a giant to be managed correctly. No network can succeed if it doesn't have enough people.

What needed to happen was the signing on cities clamoring for accountability and getting some people removed and money in the right places. This misguided bill is approaching a good idea in a horrible way. Much like Utah state despises how the Feds will impose their will on the states, the state feels its perfectly fine in behaving the same way.

Utah needs another VIABLE option other than Comcast. Everyone here calling time-warner/cox/etc, doesn't live in the area. If you're not lucky enough be in a utopia city, its comcrap or dsl that drops if someone else watches youtube on their phone.

As an affected person: whatever it takes 13 mil in debt service or no, get it deployed, get us a free market.

An interesting footnote on this article that's otherwise about other things, but this is a demonstration of how and why it is that telecoms don't really elect to build fiber in the US. The average population density, including cities and etc. is about half that of Europe. 34 per km squared US verse 72 in Europe, keep in mind that while this includes Alaska in the US, it includes all of Eastern Europe for the EU. The pattern repeats for average city and town density, so it's going to cost (on average) twice as much to lay fiber per person in the US as in the EU.

That's also why we've got the most advanced wireless telecoms deployment. Oh sure next gen protocols might be tested everywhere, but they're inevitably deployed here first. It makes more sense, from an infrastructure standpoint, for the US to go wireless. We need competition in the wireless industry, hopefully Dish will enter as a new telecom without buying up anyone major like T-Mobile.

while it's true that it's much more expensive, i'm pretty sure that people would still pay for good 100mbps or 1gpbs connection if they are made even if they are more expensive.but just to give you a taste of what real competition and investments can do: where i live, in romania, i can get 1gbps for just 20$ + a free 3G USB modem i'm pretty sure that if there was any real competition in the US you could have had 1gbps for 100-200$. i really wish the US would do something about it's extremely bad and expensive internet connections, it's slowing progress in the entire world.